Matrix Games Forums

That graphic has misspellings and well out of service aircraft on it. I wouldn't consider it a great source.

There is no real-world data out there on an S-400 intercept an advanced artillery rocket (small guided bm). Hope I didn't just put my foot in my mouth

Currently, in beta CMO the launch to impact time is quicker than the SA-21 can process and engage. Seems reasonable.

Mike

Thanks for the answer.

Just appeared this pic of a radar component of the S-400 system, destroyed in Lazurne (Black Sea Coast), supposedly by M31A1 rockets.

Older builds before Tiny used to be able to intercept guided rockets (classified as ordinary guided missiles) with S-400 or something lesser likr Tor effiently, this is why now I adapted "rocket spam".

In CMO, some unguided rocket and rocket have incredible precision.

My favorite is 203mm SLRC cluster munition, which I think must be launched with railgun and has good GPS/millimeter radar guidance but count as ordinary gun in game. It could pinpoint any TELs within 900nm+ range.

Under new sim model in recent builds it seems S-400s have difficulty engaging advanced rockets or smaller missiles like SM-6, but these rounds have some issue about damaging the target -- I could launch a whole barrage of 32 missiles toward a single S-400 base, all detonated and cause no damage whatsoever.

bsq wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:28 pm

BDukes wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:13 pm
My hang up is they seem to be relying heavily on optically guided weapons with less capable avionics (TV site much different than modern IR, multispectral etc). They just don't have access to the components to do it.

Not sure how you could impact CEP other than maybe a lua routine to percent % to a new target. That would be very sketchy approach..

Mike

Only going to get worse. At the risk of offending another block of humantity, now that they are cut off from high end western electronics due to the sanctions, I wonder if the circuit boards from Shenyang will be like my LED bulbs from Shenyang?

Cheaper than German or Dutch bulbs, same quoted MTBF 30000 hours, reality less an a few 1000 hours, about the same as the 1930's design tradtional bulbs.

I might look LUA, only just getting to grips with it for laying down a series of reference points to waypoint TLAMs in the absence of any function I can see to automatically do this.

I wonder when Shenyang instead of Shenzhen are building these cheap and dirty electronics.

CMO didn't model malfunctioning eletronics or broken/unreliable datalink at this moment. In one old post about why SA-2s are not pure command guiding the developer said that such model would be difficult to implement because they didn't have a good picture about degrading/bad datalink behavior in real life.

One solution may be using the reliabilty factor presented in database now and calculate a fix probability of electronic/guidance malfunction. If RNGesus is happy about this round, it would choose a new target (if having targeting guidance module) or a new impact point (INS or malfunctioning targeting system) and go with it.

I use lua to model GPS jamming so will likely use the same routine for this. That's if the researching jamming links between weapons and aircraft bears any fruit. Got to check myself before I wreck myself.

Nikel wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 9:21 pm Thanks for the answer.

Just appeared this pic of a radar component of the S-400 system, destroyed in Lazurne (Black Sea Coast), supposedly by M31A1 rockets.

This is a Podlet-K1 low-level s band acquisition radar. It isn't part of the S-400 but mighty fine to destroy regardless.

I think it is an optional element. Depending on how much you want to pay for your S-400

Like the similar radar displayed in the pic for stealth or low flying targets.

gennyo wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:49 am Under new sim model in recent builds it seems S-400s have difficulty engaging advanced rockets or smaller missiles like SM-6, but these rounds have some issue about damaging the target -- I could launch a whole barrage of 32 missiles toward a single S-400 base, all detonated and cause no damage whatsoever.

Looks like a move in the right direction, according to the data that is published in the net. Always with caution regarding propaganda, of course.

bsq wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:28 pm

BDukes wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:13 pm
My hang up is they seem to be relying heavily on optically guided weapons with less capable avionics (TV site much different than modern IR, multispectral etc). They just don't have access to the components to do it.

Not sure how you could impact CEP other than maybe a lua routine to percent % to a new target. That would be very sketchy approach..

Mike

Only going to get worse. At the risk of offending another block of humantity, now that they are cut off from high end western electronics due to the sanctions, I wonder if the circuit boards from Shenyang will be like my LED bulbs from Shenyang?

Cheaper than German or Dutch bulbs, same quoted MTBF 30000 hours, reality less an a few 1000 hours, about the same as the 1930's design tradtional bulbs.

I might look LUA, only just getting to grips with it for laying down a series of reference points to waypoint TLAMs in the absence of any function I can see to automatically do this.

A lot of videos released by the PLA have shown that Chinese guided munitions are actually fairly accurate. With guided bombs it’s possible their real world performance could differ, the videos are mostly released by propaganda outlets.

But with ballistic missiles, we have satellite imagery showing remarkable accuracy in classified tests. Just the other day a DF-26 was launched and directly impacted the middle of an E-767 mockup. It was surrounded by J-7s and J-8s, and so likely uses an EO/IR seeker to identify the proper target.

Another thing to note is that China is not Russia, nor is it 2005 China. It still has a ways to go but has come quite a long way in quality, at least for actual machines like ships, rockets, and aircraft and not the plastic trinkets in the checkout isle of a grocery store.

BDukes wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 7:27 pm That graphic has misspellings and well out of service aircraft on it. I wouldn't consider it a great source.

There is no real-world data out there on an S-400 intercept an advanced artillery rocket (small guided bm). Hope I didn't just put my foot in my mouth

Currently, in beta CMO the launch to impact time is quicker than the SA-21 can process and engage. Seems reasonable.

Mike

Tried it with HIMARS, they 'petered out' 33% down range (around 20 - 25 km down range), consistently repeatable, guess another missile/rocket fuel bug has reared its head in beta.

bsq wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:59 pm Tried it with HIMARS, they 'petered out' 33% down range (around 20 - 25 km down range), consistently repeatable, guess another missile/rocket fuel bug has reared its head in beta.

Indeed That has fortunately already been reported:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=385929

It appears a lot of statements in this threat (and indeed that graphic) are not based on adequate data and reliable methods. There seems to be a lot of selection bias and mind reading involved.

For example: How does anybody in this forum or the popular media have access to intelligence to know what the "actual" target of a missile was? It's common practice to repurpose facilities during war. It doesn't just give additional capacity but it's also a sort of camouflage. As in the case of the mentioned famous "shopping mall", it was closed to the public nine weeks before the strike (as stated on Google maps). Why was it closed? Was it used for military purposes? I guess nobody here knows.
But when I saw the videos of the fire I noticed that the mall went up in flames like a firework store. I think it was very likely an intended target indeed.

A good sample size would be the first day of the air campaign. Within only a few hours all EW radars (and there were many) as well as primary air defense units (except the one, of course) in the whole country were destroyed by long-range missiles.
This actually points to very high reliability and accuracy of those missiles.

Or did I miss anything important?

KilianJay wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:19 am It appears a lot of statements in this threat (and indeed that graphic) are not based on adequate data and reliable methods. There seems to be a lot of selection bias and mind reading involved.

With all due respect, did you really expect to find unbiased scientific data in this thread ? That unbiased scientific data doesn't exist yet in public, maybe in 10+ years.

Gizzmoe wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:41 am

KilianJay wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:19 am It appears a lot of statements in this threat (and indeed that graphic) are not based on adequate data and reliable methods. There seems to be a lot of selection bias and mind reading involved.

With all due respect, did you really expect to find unbiased scientific data in this thread ? That unbiased scientific data doesn't exist yet in public, maybe in 10+ years.

Haha. Obviously I didn't expect this. But I always wish for more critical thinking. I believe we would live in a much better world.
And the realization that especially during war there is little public information available aside from propaganda.

I guess we have some pretty good data about Russian missiles available from the Syrian campaign. If they perform poorer in Ukraine it's likely due to less ISR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) and not due to the missiles itself.

KilianJay wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:55 am But I always wish for more critical thinking. I believe we would live in a much better world.

Yeah, a world with critical and unbiased thinking and decision-making would be awesome It won't ever be that way though...

I guess we have some pretty good data about Russian missiles available from the Syrian campaign.

Is it unbiased data?

In the age of AS-4s they don't really care about precision as it should be nuclear armed or with a ridiculously huge warhead hitting huge targets.

Buildings and land targets may not have strong radar signetures like ships, which are the intended targets for AS-4s, those missiles may relied on INS with or without GPS/datalink updates. For land attack they should suffer some degrade of precision.

I do think they may target shopping malls for terror bombing.

Kitchens should land within range of a kitchen. A big one.

Gizzmoe wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:13 am Is it unbiased data?

Of course not. But if both "sides" in a conflict provide about the same info it's at least more credible.

KilianJay wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:39 am

Gizzmoe wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:13 am Is it unbiased data?

Of course not. But if both "sides" in a conflict provide about the same info it's at least more credible.

Yes. What's your "complaint" then? The reported weapon performance data within the Russian-Ukraine war can't be entirely trusted, the Russian-Syrian one can't as well? Well.......

KilianJay wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:19 am
A good sample size would be the first day of the air campaign. Within only a few hours all EW radars (and there were many) as well as primary air defense units (except the one, of course) in the whole country were destroyed by long-range missiles.
This actually points to very high reliability and accuracy of those missiles.

Or did I miss anything important?

Is this a real campaign you refer to or a hypothetical one. I ask because if you are saying there was some sort of mass destruction of the Ukraine IADs on night one, clearly that just did not happen as they are still shooting down Russian aircaft today with the very systems that would have been 'destroyed'.

As to your last line, I beleive you have.

Russians - "We do not target civillians - we were striking a unit making part for vehicles to rebuild bridges"
Ukranians - "We think the target was a 'tractor factory' making agricultural equipment"
Google Earth - Shows a tractor factory in an industrial estate immediately behind a shopping complex
World Media - Shows aftermath
CCTV - Shows AS-4 hitting the mall - thats a very big missile, the size of a small fighter jet

Centre of the mall to centre of the Tractor factory = 440 metres assuming it hit dead centre. Max miss is possibly 600m

So the facts are out there, reported by both side, by the media and by hard evidence.

They hardly ever used these types of weapons in Syria and when they did they were shown to be using them as terror weapons against 'errant' Syrians ie those who had had enough of Asad.

My initial statement still holds good, just how accurate are these things? Moreover the game even with LUA cannot replicate these dire results for so called smart weapons.

Not an easy question to parse out especially in respect to the CMO model. Are they inaccurate because their reliability sucks, CEP is very wide or do the targeting systems suck? Use case is a thing too. Are they really using the best munition for the job or what they have on hand? Not easy questions to answer.

Mike

BDukes wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 10:10 am Not an easy question to parse out especially in respect to the CMO model. Are they inaccurate because their reliability sucks, CEP is very wide or do the targeting systems suck? Use case is a thing too. Are they really using the best munition for the job or what they have on hand? Not easy questions to answer.

Mike

Using S-300 5V55 missiles in SSM mode, says all we need to know about your last line... These were never intended or designed to be used surface to surface, but this is what they are now using.